When we think about beginning a new project, we set out from the foundational belief – almost credal – that you have to have paid staff from day one. I’ve been told by a leading C of E thinker on fresh expressions that, to pioneer a new project successfully, you need two full-time paid staff. I frequently meet with people who tell me about their vision for a fresh expression of church, only for it to transpire that the reason they are sharing their passion is because they want me to pay for it!

But does this need to be the case?
Well, the independent churches don’t seem to think so. In the main, they start with leaders who are not paid and, as the church and its income grows, the leaders reduce the self-supporting work they do. Although they haven’t really been into the emerging church thing and their ecclesiology is congregational, their track record of creating Christian communities makes me sit up and take notice.

And the apostle Paul didn’t seem to set out with this assumption either. Although he could argue coherently for paying those who minister, he seemed to be very cautious about accepting payment himself (1 Cor 9), particularly in the pioneering stages of ministry (1 Thess 3:6-16). His reasons are worthy of further reflection (not now), particularly for pioneers, for whom he is surely a primary role model.

My concern is this: that by paying pioneers (generally with the condition that they pay us back within a limited time period), we hold them back in their mission rather than enable them to fulfil it.

Think about it. If the institution is holding a pioneer’s purse strings with the axe hovering on the whole project if they can’t fulfil an ambitious financial objective, how will the pioneer respond? Will they take risks? Will they gravitate towards the poor or the unpredictable? Will they feel free to go against institutional norms and do something new? Will they be more concerned with serving the Church hierarchy or serving the unchurched?

And if they are being paid to be out of the secular workplace, will they find it easy to build relationships with the unchurched? Will that set the best example to other Christ-followers in their community as they seek to ?

I fear the answer to those questions will more often than not be “no”. If so, we’re setting them up to fail at their primary objective of doing something that will create church out on the edge. There are two additional problems with the model of front-loading full-time salaries: first, there is little evidence that these projects, with the notable exception of church transplants from large churches and projects that receive an influx of transfer growth (which isn’t really what we’re talking about), can make themselves cost neutral within a limited time frame. Secondly, given the money available to most dioceses, if we follow this model, we’re not going to get much started. In God’s economy, we can’t afford to do that.

I believe there are leaders out there who are committed to pioneering new forms of church without the mixed blessing of paid ministry. We want to find ways to support them in that process and give them empowering accountability. I want to be meeting with people who come to me with their vision and tell me that they’re going to drive a white van to make it happen, not ask me to pay for it. Let me know if that’s you.

My word you do not half post some heretical nonsense on this blog. Nearly everything you have posted so far has been tried by the early church and horrible, bloody and awful struggles ensued. You should read a little more early church history. Who defends orthodoxy? Who upholds the creeds? Who hands on lessons learnt? Your vision has been tried in every generation, and failed in every generation as the “leaders” fell into wrong teaching, cultish behaviour such a poor rendition of Christianity for it to become a cartoon.

What you describe is not discernibly Anglican, is not a successful model of church in any other place or at any other time. It is prideful to suggest this perverse and foolish generation is so different from other previous cultures and over simplistic to try and re-invent a church to meet a fleeting zeitgeist.

Great stuff. Like a breath of fresh air. I’ve always thought the gifted amatuer usually does a better job than paid professionals (or at least as good a job) and there’s a need for both streams – no disrespect to church paid pastors etc.

It is a sign of the times that many expect the paid professional to do most, if not all the work in the church. This can be an excuse for some to do little or nothing which is wrong, and for some ‘professional’s it can lead to them being aloof, also wrong. I think in some respects the Anglican Church has been slow in accepting the totality of the priesthood of all believers and has in the past added to that erroneous dichotomy. For instance. I know that we can do all things in Christ, except where Canon law prohibits. I take on board that you mention the need for ’empowering accountabilty’ and I think that’s the way to go.

As one who (2 years ago) worked ‘voluntarily’ for a ‘new church’ (Newfrontiers), giving my time without cost, I’ve got a few thoughts on this topic!

I can see both sides of the argument. Obviously we have the example of Paul (et al) who ‘chose’ to work, rather than receive an income from the church, as a ‘model’ to the church on not becoming a ‘salaried pedaller of the word’.

However, even he recognises that the ‘worker deserves their wages’ and it appears that his stance was not the ‘typical’ one.

The main draw back from having self supporting church pioneers is that they have to give a substantial part of their time to a ‘secular’ career. This, quite pragmatically, reduces their time for visiting, supporting, praying, preparing, teaching etc.. all of which are an essential part of shepherding God’s flock.

However there’s nothing that focuses the mind as having to ‘earn ones way’ whilst engaging in mission!

I believe that all missionary pioneers will require at least some financial (as well as spiritual) support if they’re to avoid ‘burnout’ (which is what happened to me). So I guess I support some form of stipendary ministry in ‘mission’ contexts with the aim being that the congregation become ‘self supporting’ and, indeed, supportive of other missionary contexts ultimatley (the timing being different depending on the context). I think this is the current CofE attitude anyhow?!

Good challenge though, and certainly no room for ‘salaried complacency’ in seeking to expand God’s kingdom!

Ouch! I have mixed feelings, if the church paid me a living wage for the work I am doing and gave our emerging church / fresh expression a financial helping hand for the first year it would enable me to spend more time doing the work, it would stop me worrying about what I/we can afford to do, it would free me to put more into it. I will end up driving a white van (if I could indeed drive) because I believe very passionately in the church we have planted/ developed and their mission, but I will do it feeling that my ministry compared to a ‘normal’ church minister is somehow devalued by the Church.

IBishop Mike, I agree that the institution holding an axe over every project would be (and is) an awful thing. But I have doubts as to how far the drive-a-white-van idea is the solution to the problem. If you only had self-funding ministers, you would self-select a lot of valuable people out of the picture immediately. The clergy, including a generation of people who emerged from exactly that pre-fresh-expressions stable, will be automaticaly excluded from pioneering, just when they have added theological training to their vision and passion for the gospel, and instead will be relegated to winding down dying rural churches (when perhaps they could have been building minster models or csome suchy exciting thing). ANd surely we want at least some theologically trained people among our pioneering ministers?

Furthermore if we prefer self-funding ministries, people who literally cannot afford to fund their own ministries will be excluded. What single parent, for instance, could afford to keep their family, fund their ministry and pay for out of hours childcare on the side while pioneering a new vision? Yet it’s often people who live a little on the edge who are the most visionary in their undersatnding of new shapes of church ministry.

Of course we should be backing people with vision, not just those looking for a pay-packet alone (although it beats me why you think anyone who is motivated by money would be working in the church – at least on a non-preferred stipend). But surely the kick in the pants should be to the Institution to stop being such a contral freak, and get visionary. Maybe, in fact, what we should be doing is examining who we promote into controlling positions in the Church, and how much self-sacrifical, visionary capacity they have?

Maggi, I’m not sure how the clergy would be excluded from pioneering work if the paid assumption was challeneged. After all, there are hundreds of self-supporting clergy anyway (whose ministry is enormously valuable) and for those who are stipendiary, I don’t think there’s anything stopping them moving into self-supporting ministry if they could make it work. And clergy aren’t the only theologically trained people either. I agree about your single parent example though.

I don’t think Mike is arguing purely for self-supporting ministry. More against the assumption that to get anything going you have to deploy paid ministers. I think that’s what Paul did. He argued for the rule (of paid ministers) in order to justify the exceptions. Pioneering work might be the most appropriate place for exceptions. It’s a challenge to me, certainly.

but Oliver, when I was ordained (after years of self-supporting ministry) I was told that the whole principle of stipends is to give someone enough to live on that they can have time to be available to the ministry, not to give tem a “wage” but just enough to relieve them of the responsibility of being self-supporting. “Don’t expect us to make you wealthy,” said my DDO, “but do expect us to make you available.” What does a self-supporting minister do when someone is dying? In my job it is absolutely understood that if someone is in a crisis it’s OK for me not to show up at a committee meeting. We must keep the principle (even if it’s totally re-organised) of releasing some people in a commun ity for availability. THat may not be what St Paul did, but it’s precisely what they did in the Acts of the Apostles. 🙂

I agree. I wouldn’t argue against the stipendiary principle (nor does St Paul, 1 Cor 9 etc, and I don’t think that’s +Mike’s argument either – that would be heretical nonsense), but the question being asked is whether it’s the only way to do it. Obviously this imposes other constraints (inability to drop everything, time freed up, and so on), but the nature of pioneering ministry is different too.

From my observations of the Church of England system, little real effort has been put into the ongoing support and accountability of self-supporting clergy and lay leaders. If we collude with the idea that the only real way to do ministry is to to be paid and ordained and the only way for the structures to value ministers is to pay them, we ‘re further embedding the dichotomy that Brother Tadhg refers to.

Interestingly, the criteria for Ordained Pioneer Ministers suggests that they will move between periods of stipendiary and self-supporting ministry. Let’s see whether that actually happens. It’s an interesting debate.

I like better the idea that Mike’s “drive a white van” is a principle of discernment. People in all types of careers, as well as ministries, have to go through a time of serious graft and sacrifice if they want to establish themselves at what they do. “How badly do you want to do this?” is a good question to ask. But I still think that there needs to be flexibility in what we count as pioneering, and where we are prepared to stipend and release ministers. Otherwise all the pioneers will be young, or with fewer responsibiltites, and all the trained, experienced people will be excluded from pioneering (unless they are lucky enough to be rich, or married to someone who can suport the family, or… you get my drift) I would hate to see people excluded from pioneer ministry because they can’t afford to do it, when they are in reality highly talented and motivated people. Paying ministers shouldn’t be the only way to make them valued, but sometimes it is really the only way to enable them to fulfil their ministry.
I agree we must watch this new(ish) thing as it unfolds. The fact that we are talking about this at all shows that it’s out of the earliest stage of pioneering (which is always volunteer and self-funding) so we have to watch how the realtionship to institution allows it to develop. Thanks for keeping the conversation bubbling

I think part of the issue at hand is what we think of when we think of starting a church. Are we thinking of a building on the corner? Are we thinking of a weekly service? If this is what we are talking about, then it may be more important to have funding. However, I think many emerging church expressions do/will look different. It is more about raising up a community – about building relationships, creating connections between people and God, and connections between persons. Being a paid “minister” can be a hindrance in this kind of church building. This approach involves an outsider coming in and trying to create something. I think an emerging view is for the outsider to come in and become an insider – live in the community, work with the people, and share in the struggles of the particular place. As this happens, the work of church planting can occur. Maybe it turns into something later on with a paid clergy, maybe it doesn’t. But I agree that to raise up this kind of church, it can be a hinderance to be paid.

In sum, I think a lot of this has much to do with how we understand the concept of planting a church, pioneering a new form of church, etc.

Dear David Sixtop
Maybe you shouldn’t listen to your friends LOL. However, if God called you to be a dentist, I’d like to book an appointment for 2.30 tomorrow. Bless.
[Seriously, David….are you saying the professionalism is superior to God’s call? Surely, not!
Ciao
PS: Mike: Great post.

Another danger in assuming people must be paid: those in authority may come to value only the projects in which they have invested funds. In my own (secular) work, I’ve done a lot of things that simply don’t make it onto the radar screen of management because they didn’t invest significant resources in my work. That’s not a problem for me unless I need management’s attention, but it does lead me, cynically, to see expensive, badly executed work as more visible to higher-ups than cheap, well-executed work.

While I admire the original post, I wonder whether the point is only about ordained leadership–what about those in supporting roles, for example musicians?

Excellent post and some great comments. One further observation I’d give is that is the new church of fresh expression starts with one or more employees then their is little motivation for the congregation to give their time to serve, support and minister. If its clear from the outselt that the leadership is self-supporting then it becomes easy to request time from others.

Yes it always seems to me that there is a reversal of the traditional order of cart and horse in Fresh Expressions stuff. Let’s have a million ideas some of which will fly and some will die. Let’s hope some of the ideas reach the point where they can become employers because employing people to work is a good thing. And let’s free up a little of the time of our churches’ current employees, especially the ones with entrepreneural sense, to see if they can start businesses which make enough money to save the church having to pay them.

[…] holds at national level too: you get the priests you plan for. It may be this instinct which led to a recent thought-provoking post by Bishop Mike Hill, where he wondered whether the best way of providing innovative, apostolic leaders was not to pay […]

Inspite of previous comment about the early church I have found this piece timely. Both my husband and I have been in full time ministry for years and wonder at this particular time in our lives whether not to cut back on our ‘Tent making’ ministry but indeed if the spirit is calliung us to extend that element . Perhaps because we see it as a full part of ministry not a secular bit . A help not a hindrance .Maybe such an emerging church might well blend a whole life experience of faith.

1. I want to thank you for a challenging post.
2. I want to thank Maggi for her comments.

I wonder whether part of your indictment of paid pioneers arises not from the natural influence of money upon the ministries of pioneers but from your awareness of the churches failure to give without seeking return? Also, I think you mean 2 Thes. 3:6-16 seeing as there is no 1 Thes. 3:14, 15, or 16. Anyway, you may equally look to texts like Philippians 4:15-20 in which the apostle sets out a theology for funding missions.

I think the words “mixed-economy” are of great significance here. I think the most useful question you have raised is how we can better discern, support, and value lay ministry. However, I agree with Maggi about the need to discern calling.

Finally, I suspect that the discussion about the benefits of lay or salaried ministry is best left to practitioners such as Richard… and Brother Tadgh?

I like it! All pioneer projects should clearly envisage a point at which the funding self-generated, except in those few cases which the church collectively decides should be ‘loss leaders’ (mission amongst Muslims from Eastern Europe or some such).

First stop, though, should be the local parish, where subsidy through ‘parish share’ and ‘diocesan quota’ should be phased out ASAP.

PS. Is Mike’s heading “Drive a white van” really supposed>/i> to be going through my head to the tune of T Rex’s “Ride a white swan”?

I come from a very different type of ‘contempery Christian movement’ and I find it very interesting how different the views on this are with the organisation that I am associated to.

The general feeling that seems to come accross within our movement is that if you want to start a new project, church plant or any type of post modern Christian work, you should be expecting not to get paid. The funny thing is though is that it is totally as the opposite end of the scale to where you are at. So everyone is doing everything with no payment at all, and saying things like “We are prepared to drop this whole thing at any moment if we feel God calls us to”.

While that is obviouly a good attitude to have, it becomes a problem if you need funding for a project. Who wants to put money into something that “We are prepared to drop at any minute”.

Just to clarify, I work full time for free for a Christian organisation with no financial support other than my partners job and a little work that I pick up when we are really broke.

I agree with your post 100%. For want of a better word, I just find it ‘funny’ how both ends of the scale can create the same problem.

One thing though, not having easy access to money or paid positions has never stopped us doing what we feel God has called us to do. And whenever we feel God puts a project on our hearts to do, the finance always comes from somewhere.

It’s not a case of either / or, but both / and.
I would recommend we employ as many people as we can afford, sacrificially, and as are gifted in the work.
The advantage about starting off with full time paid staff is that it helps to get things going more quickly, and deeply (“start as you mean to go on”). It takes as long to prepare God’s word for 12 as 120!
Furthermore, it seems to me your diagnosis of the constraints sending churches put on the mission worker is an endictment on the sending church, not a reason not to send someone full time in the first place.
We work in a “fresh expression” which started with less than 10 people 18 months ago. We’re around 30 now. None are from “transfer” growth. We depend on individual discipling in the word and in building relationships – because people start so much further away in terms of understanding of the gospel.
If the harvest is plenty (Matthew 9:38) why not send full time harvesters if we can?!

While I applaud your sentiments Mike, I think there are several areas that need addressing before it could become a credible reality.

The first is that of credibility and authority. If I as a lay person came to you and said I want to start Church X ministering to subculture Y with the blessing of the C of E , you are (I hope) going to want to exercise some sort of oversight to ensure that things are in line with the Church’s mission (to avoid the NOS debacle). How do we determine that authority (Or do I have to quit my job and spend 2 years at Theological college – thus seriously undermining my ability to retain a career to fund the work), or study part time (thus ensuring by the time I get the authority, the moment has passed for the mission)?

While I see you pose the question in terms of “fresh expressions”, surely this is a question for the church as a whole – how we build and develop leadership, and use that leadership to support mission both in new fields, AND good old parish ministry.

One other question that rears its head is what “self-supporting” means. Whilst I have no time for quota boycotts (usually from rich evangelical parishes with less sacrificial giving than those struggling in the inner city [and I’ve been a treasurer in both environments…]), a new expression might easily be able to pay for what it uses, and its own staff (and even their pension contributions), but ask it to pay for the pension mistakes of the past, the fabric of our heritage, and the infrastructure built to support the very models we are breaking away from, how in a multi-church environment are we going to stop such a congregation from going its own way (£20,000+ a year for a few chats with the Archdeacon isn’t going to wash). But if they are exempted the quota boycotts will surely become more pronounced.

Unless we can credibly shape the whole of our structures to support new ways of working both at the heart as well as the edges of the church, how can we maintain the catholicity of the church?

I have no easy answers – but the questions were enough to get me to pull out of the ordination process a few years ago, and I think the problems grow ever more acute. My experience in “fresh expressions” is that they help highlight the questions the church keeps sweeping under the carpet.

Is the white van ‘being paid’ or is the truck ‘institutionalism’ instead of organism, whether paid or not? Some paid pros do a brilliant job, some gifted amateurs deserve to be asked to find alternative interests! On the other, anglican, hand, maybe most old pros are a bit institutionally tired, and perhaps most gifted amateurs go on loving a lot longer.

After reading most of the above I count myself to be in a fairly unique place. Whilst being ordained, I am licensed to a team to be ‘out there’ [wherever that is?]. My institutional responsibilities are fairly low key, thus allowing me the time & opportunity to engage with whosoever wherever whenever. It is immensely liberating if not a little frightening at times.

My own versions of ‘white van’ driving are workng 1 night a week in a local pub [unpaid] & being a member of Gala Bingo on friday afternoons. At both these locations there are communities who we would normally never engage with, & to whom we are irrelevant. Similar communities exist all over this nation [car clubs, line dancing, bird watchers etc] if the Christians of this country became part of these communiies & ‘lived out the life of Christ’ from within them, we might, just might begin to make a difference.

Coming back to the issue of money, to be a member of most of these communities costs financially very little, if anything, but they do require time. Something we cannot give if we are at numerous meetings & services, mostly if not totally focussed upon inhouse issues. Sadly our attractional mode of mission makes us focus on many of the issues highlighted previously. These produce barriers & lock us into a cycle of inwardlookingness (?), ‘who is going to pay….., who is going to do……etc.

Imagine a Christian community growing out of ‘eyes down for your first number’! I wonder if Jesus played Bingo?

If paying people in ministry really does stunt creativity and gives a poor model of discipleship to new converts, maybe that tells us a lot about why the traditional church is failing so dramatically… If it’s such a good idea to avoid paid ministry in fresh expressions, perhaps the same medicine would help traditional parish ministry? Maybe Bishop Mike could try it out on one of his Deaneries and see whether the churches there begin to blossom as a result. And I wonder if, when people come to him with a deep conviction that God is calling them to be ordained and work in traditional parish ministry, he has this same sinking feeling that they are also asking to be stipendiary and that this will undermine their ministry?

Even big institutional companies maintain ‘R&D’ departments, which don’t have same ‘production’ expectations that other parts of the company have. Shouldn’t the CofE be maintaining a healthy R&D section on a professional basis? That does not preclude us picking up creative ideas from unpaid free-lancers who offer them to you. But to depend on such free-lance initiatives for the future of your institution seems wreckless in the extreme.

Would someone please read some church history, please, pretty please. There is nothing new under the sun. Every church model has been explored. You do not have to try hard to find any model of church you like, and some you won’t like. I understand the latest count of denominations in America is over thirty five thousand. The Anglican church has its own model, what you are suggesting is that it tries to be something it is not, whilst not showing that what you want it to be is better in any discernable way. Stuff and nonsense.

The traditional church is not “failing dramatically.” Recent press releases suggest the diocese of Bristol is growing.

I can not help but feel that many people posting on this blog have not only little understanding of church history but little understanding of why the Anglican church, unlike many other denomination has stood the test of time. I keep banging on about church history because I am suggesting that it is easy if to have a successful church if you are willing to throw out stuff that does not fit a narrow and immature Christian faith, proper exegesis, the creeds, church order and all that boring old guff. Without which, of course, a church always becomes a cultish sect of like minded people who end up making the same heretical mistakes that THOUSANDS of such sects have made for millennia.

And the price of these errors? Souls lost, hearts broken and Christ diminished. I feel I am reading so much post modern easy option “Hey we just want to do what we want” stuff. Please read some church history before you criticise a church that has served its country for centuries. And will do so long after “emerging” churches have fallen by the wayside.

Have you taken a look at the accelerating rate in the decline in church attendance in the last 30 years ( around 6-8% of the UK)
and projected rates for the future? Do you see many young people in church? Adopting a head in the sand approach to the fate of the church in the UK by being in denial is incrediblely complacent.

I have been really challenged by the various recent posts on clergy life (Paul Robert’s blog)/white van man blog and the like. As things stand, given the Church’s diminishing manpower and financial resources, it would seem that any newly-ordained priest faces a lifetime dominated by administration; mini-church politics (nightmare!); the prospect of spreading oneself very thinly between an increasing number of church congregations; and a very difficult family life! His or her original calling is likely to have become swamped in the process. The present model surely can’t continue to be applied in the Anglican Church. Paul’s comment about those considering strategies to cope with the future forgetting the parable of the seed (which needs to die if anything is to grow) seems entirely apt.
The Emerging/Alternative Church movement would seem to have much to commend it – albeit that it appears to thrive on the basis of relatively small, intimate groups. If I were a priest, I’m pretty sure this would be the kind of church community I’d like to lead/be part of – but initially, at least, I would need some financial security and the freedom to set up and establish (or take over) a church community without the need to provide all the other “services”. As a “follower”, I think I’d like to be part of a similar group. Over the next 10 years, I can only see more and more people opting for belonging to this type of church community – and, in all probability, such groups being assisted by the most talented and visionary leaders.
I’m incredibly naive on such matters, but maybe it’s against this backdrop that the Anglican Church (both nationally and regionally) should be starting to brainstorm bold and radical medium-/long-term strategies?

Two issues emerge from Mike’s post and subsequent comments: a) the creative possibilities of unpaid pioneer leaders and b) the trend for paid leaders to administer ever larger groups of churches.

The driving factor may be finance, but both issues connect in the apparent tension that is creativity versus administrative order. David Sixtop is right to point out that church history is littered with failed movements that allowed creativity to win over order before heading into trouble. But he’s wrong to suggest that the tension is itself un-Anglican. Where I see churches growing, it’s precisely because the environment is one of ‘ordered creativity’.

I suggest that the real problem is in dwindling churches which insist that they deserve a share of some overstretched vicar’s administrative oversight because ordered decline is about all that can be hoped for.

Paul is on to something when he talks about the futility of non-strategic planning. We need courage to allow every church leader opportunity for creativity and courage to name the fact that non-viable churches simply can’t be sustained with a little bit of stipendiary support. Without that courage, the costs to church leaders won’t so much be financial, it will be paid in broken marriages and mental ill-health.

I am an American. I am paid clergy. It does in fact limit some of the risks that I am willing to take in various instances. It also frees me for a great deal of ministry in terms of my time.
What is of interest to me in this stream of posts is that no one seems to be asking a further question. If a minister is freed from the so called “axe” of the congregation hanging over their heads, then are they solely freed for good actions? In other words, one might argue that while and independent leader is indeed more free to do as he/she wills, they might also be wholly freed to do whatever they wish. Is financial accountability always evil? It certainly seems evil when it is described as an axe. But, is it?
Perhaps it seems laughable, but the American is worried about too much individualism. I think in many ways that my fiduciary dependence upon my congregation gives me a nice barrier to dominating the community with my creativity or personality. It is never wholly about what I want to do. Indeed my payment is baseline form of accountability. Furthermore, my pay is often an excellent reminder for my soul that I am being supported by the tithe of the community. Therefore, I have a burden to be a good steward of that pay.
And lets not be anachronistic when it comes to Paul. Had no one fed him, housed him, listened to him, his ministry would have died. That is payment. Like it or not. He overtly challenged some community standards, but in other areas he was very circumspect about what he argued for and how he argued for it. Paul was not totally free to say, think, and do whatever he wanted. Even he knew what side his bread was buttered on, and I am not sure that was such a bad thing. Is freedome from the accountability of pay something that gets us one step closer to Godlieness, or just one step closer to being God in our communities? I think it’s a valid question. Peace.

Somebody save me from burnout. I’ve been doing inner city ministry for almost a year now. I am required to work at it 4 days a week but end up working it 6 days a week. It is a gang infested area so often I break up fights. I am a 49 yr. old woman. I am required to live in the ministry house although I have my own home somewhere else. I am not compensated except for a little help with gasoline. Often I run out of money before the end of the month from a personal income source. Often this ministry is used as the “great example” of what others should be doing by the top of the ministry. So why am I becoming more and more impoverished? I have dropped my entire life to serve these people as they step on me to furthur their own ministry careers. The minister just got a new high dollar home. Meanwhile I am chided for eating a left over hotdog from an event. What gives? This is not a cult. It is a mainline denomination. Any comments?

Mrs. L.your situation sounds horrible! I understood the early Christians shared everything they had, and since few of us do that now [or am I wrong??] it’d be a start if church leaders kept a better eye on the willing workers before they get worn out,undermined and resentful. I just read all the comments and really can’t understand a lot of it … my question would be – what happens when church leaders, paid or unpaid, get so demoralised by the pressure to ‘do things differently’ that they can’t think straight any more? I’ve been to some brilliant talks by Bishop Mike, but some of the older [and maybe younger] saints are choking on some of the expectations they feel they can’t live up to. Pray, pray, pray …

Dear brother in Christ,
First of all I praise and thank Lord Jesus for giving an opportunity to
have beautiful fellowship with your Blessed Ministry by sending this Email.
This is pastor pravardhan varma from SOUTH-INDIA. Here people in India are
Hindus, Muslims & Buddhist they used to think that Jesus is a Man who made
big sin so that the Government in those days punishes Jesus in Cross. They
used to worship Cows, Trees, and Sun & Creations as their God. Iam so sorry to
say about my people here in India . For this we are in need of your powerful
prayers for my country people. If you are having a vision to spread Gospel
here in INDIA in these End Days, we heartily welcome you to visit India and
share gospel here for the people who are in darkness. And win souls for God
.we need your ministry Branch here in India . We are going on prayers to be
fulfilled in the name of Jesus Christ Amen. Please pray for us and for my
Ministry.
We are waiting to listen favor from you soon as God leads you.

“And if they are being paid to be out of the secular workplace, will they find it easy to build relationships with the unchurched?”

I truly believe this could be the case. I feel that I am called in to ministry of some sort, however feel I can be more effective if i am a “part-time Priest” ensuring that I do not loose touch of the world around me. It is not that I lack the dedication to the Faith, but because I feel I would be reaching more people in doing both.